On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
DESCRIPTION
* There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote
a "rationale" for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing
stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified.
You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an
actionable item here. Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the
correct process for this?
---------------------------------------
Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin
bob's views. If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their
views may differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their
views which gives *others* concern. This point of objection needs to be
resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so.
